| Author |
Message |
esperz
Full House
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 220
|
 Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 1:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| -2 for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
drtre1987
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2131
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
esperez, the read is not that he is a moron, its that he is a taggy fish. So that is a little bit different. I'm not sure that a tagfish would play any Ax. While he does play badly, it is in a different way then what you are describing. I'm not really sure too much about his playing style just from hearing "tagfish", but this probably means that he plays a little tighter preflop than your normal fish.
I'm not so sure what his range is OTT when he checks to us. Is anyone here thinking about checking behind OTT? I mean, we are almost always in a tough spot when he calls or plays back at us (especially when he plays back). We will almost never be able to narrow his range of how many Ax hands he will play. I think a check will also gain a little value when he bluffs the river and also keep the pot smaller when we are beat. Plus, I think that from his marginal hands, like say KK-99 (I can't see the HH, so ignore a hand that hits a set in this range), will only call one street anyway if they do decide to call. Plus I would say that they are more likely to call a bet OTR than OTT.
You may be giving up a little value when his range of Ax is wider than we suspect, but this may be one of those spots where I might check. Raptor was talking about this in one of his CR vids. He was talking about playing your hands in a way that makes it easier for you to play on later streets. You do sacrifice some theoretical EV in spots, but all of that +EV that you are giving up is assumming you play perfectly on later streets and don't make mistakes. I'm not exactly sure that this is one of those spots, but I don't think checking is a really bad play here.
Any thoughts on this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Riddim
Moderator
Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 8176
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
drtre, I've been thinking about checking back the turn too, but it feels a bit gross to me for some reason. I think we might be giving up a decent amount of value from big pairs and a lot of value from worse aces when we check. It's also pretty damn bad the times that he has some kind of draw unless he'll be bluffing the river a ton.
The weirdest part about this hand as far as I'm concerned is PF, which is what completely throws off his ranges later in the hand. If he was a fairly standard tagfish it'd be pretty easy to figure out an approximate range on every street, but after that minraise I feel a bit lost.
I guess it should turn out to be some kind of drawing hand almost all the time unless he either misclicked or is too awful to even be called tagfish. The question is what type of drawing hand, since the small PPs he'd take this line with beat us, whereas we have the suited connectors and small suited aces in really bad shape. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StevieWard
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 1561
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Honest_Rob wrote: |
| StevieWard wrote: |
| He could be one of those idiots that min raise with AQ etc - I call and reevaluate the turn. IU hate these hands - 50/50 shove turn, 50/50 call/shove river depending on card. |
I don't think calling the turn is really an option here. Villian only has $44.50 left after his raise and the pot will be like $115 if we call. He's committed. The only way calling could possibly work is if we think villian is a total idiot and he is bluffing and he is very likely to fold to a push and he will bluff again on the river but I doubt we could ever really be sure of all that. |
Hes not nessecarily (sp) - jesus I cant spell). commited - a lot of these players I've played against if they are bluffing will give up the river sometimes probably because they are too scared to lose all their money as its now blatently obvious you have an Ace at least. A lot of weak/bad players often min raise with A/2/3/4/5 (some of these hands would not be what we want hi to have here....), thats all I'm really worried about - if it was me and he has a set come Fh then I give him all my money, if he has AJ or AK........  . It also lets you bet the river instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StevieWard
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 1561
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Riddim wrote: |
| Draws are part of his bluffing range, and they're almost always the only part of his bluffing range that we can win any more money from, no matter what we do. In fact, since he's basically never folding anything that he raises for value, draws are usually the only hands in his entire range against which it matters whether we call down or shove. |
Surely no one bluffs on a board like this even with a draw though when its obvious your opponent definitly has an Ace....? I just call if odds dictate and cross my fingers my draw hits...if not I give up..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StevieWard
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 1561
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Riddim wrote: |
drtre, I've been thinking about checking back the turn too, but it feels a bit gross to me for some reason. I think we might be giving up a decent amount of value from big pairs and a lot of value from worse aces when we check. It's also pretty damn bad the times that he has some kind of draw unless he'll be bluffing the river a ton.
The weirdest part about this hand as far as I'm concerned is PF, which is what completely throws off his ranges later in the hand. If he was a fairly standard tagfish it'd be pretty easy to figure out an approximate range on every street, but after that minraise I feel a bit lost.
I guess it should turn out to be some kind of drawing hand almost all the time unless he either misclicked or is too awful to even be called tagfish. The question is what type of drawing hand, since the small PPs he'd take this line with beat us, whereas we have the suited connectors and small suited aces in really bad shape. |
I hate iw then I change my answer in threads like this I have an interest in. After reading everything else, I shut my eyes and shove - I'd feel even worse if i just called and a draw hit - then I would cry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Riddim
Moderator
Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 8176
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not often, but it happens. Since bluffs are basically the only hands against which it matters whether we raise or call the turn, how often he has them becomes kind of irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
esperz
Full House
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
What are the possible hands that he would bet on with some confidence even if he knew the opponent had an ace? An open-ended flush draw which would allow him the most oppurtunities or possibly the nut flush.
What cards does that allow for? 6s7s, 3s7s, Ksxs, or... he might've already made his hand with 2x3x. Wouldn't matter on the suit.
The read is he's tight, but crappy. What does that allow for combined with his bet size/calling?
KsQs? KsJs? Ax? 44? 55? AJ?
AK, AQ, in my mind is out of the question as he would've have re-raised from the get go. TAGs play their premium hands fairly aggressive PF.
44 55 is defintely a possiblity, but no where as near as likely as KsXs, Ax or AJ.
Out of those hands the only real 'legit' threat is AJ. ...I just can't justify not shoving.
...I really can't wait to hear what the guy had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StevieWard
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 1561
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| esperz wrote: |
What are the possible hands that he would bet on with some confidence even if he knew the opponent had an ace? An open-ended flush draw which would allow him the most oppurtunities or possibly the nut flush.
What cards does that allow for? 6s7s, 3s7s, Ksxs, or... he might've already made his hand with 2x3x. Wouldn't matter on the suit.
The read is he's tight, but crappy. What does that allow for combined with his bet size/calling?
KsQs? KsJs? Ax? 44? 55? AJ?
AK, AQ, in my mind is out of the question as he would've have re-raised from the get go. TAGs play their premium hands fairly aggressive PF.
44 55 is defintely a possiblity, but no where as near as likely as KsXs, Ax or AJ.
Out of those hands the only real 'legit' threat is AJ. ...I just can't justify not shoving.
...I really can't wait to hear what the guy had. |
I've been burned before by TAGs who just call with AQ - as I can enver put them on it as I assume they would re-raise....or they do usually re-raise, but on this one damned occasion decide to just call. I dont think AJ, a lot of times he may even just bin it preflop unless suited (well whenever I am in these situations they never ever have AJ when I have AQ, they have AK  ). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistaken69
Banned
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 1699
Location: taking up smoking
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| StevieWard wrote: |
Surely no one bluffs on a board like this even with a draw though when its obvious your opponent definitly has an Ace....? I just call if odds dictate and cross my fingers my draw hits...if not I give up..... |
just because you're passive and weak tight doesn't make the rest of the world that way. Remember that not everyone thinks like you. This hand seems really, really, really standard btw. If you were 200bbs deep or something it gets pretty tricky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HuJwang
Forum Blight
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 6431
Location: Halifax, NS
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Since it looks like discussion is over... I got it in and villain had 55. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StevieWard
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 1561
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mistaken69 wrote: |
| StevieWard wrote: |
Surely no one bluffs on a board like this even with a draw though when its obvious your opponent definitly has an Ace....? I just call if odds dictate and cross my fingers my draw hits...if not I give up.....
|
just because you're passive and weak tight doesn't make the rest of the world that way. Remember that not everyone thinks like you. This hand seems really, really, really standard btw. If you were 200bbs deep or something it gets pretty tricky. |
What I meant was you really have to consider the possibility he has an Ace, and I'm not a big fan of losing coolers like this with an average hand like A10 when you can easily be out ckicked - do it heaps of times and it can cost you a fortune.
On the 2nd line theres no poin in chasing draws either, unless your looking for implied odds once in a while.
I agree its standard, discounting an FH you either get it in or fold. If he was a TAG ir completant player I would probably let it go, but even with this guy looking pretty crap it still seems weird.
Last edited by StevieWard on Sat May 17, 2008 11:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HuJwang
Forum Blight
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 6431
Location: Halifax, NS
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| StevieWard wrote: |
I agree its standard, discounting an FH you either get it in or fold. If he was a TAG ir completant player I would probably let it go, but even with this guy looking pretty crap it still seems weird. |
I'd say it's a mistake to think that you should always get your money in lighter against a bad player than a good player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StevieWard
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 1561
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HuJwang wrote: |
| StevieWard wrote: |
I agree its standard, discounting an FH you either get it in or fold. If he was a TAG ir completant player I would probably let it go, but even with this guy looking pretty crap it still seems weird. |
I'd say it's a mistake to think that you should always get your money in lighter against a bad player than a good player. |
The good player is more likely to have the hand though like Ace big, the bad one with Ace rag? The good player probably realises that you get in trouble a lot with no/weak kicker hands whereas you are expected to win more with big kickers?
Sorry, I'm not sure i get you here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HuJwang
Forum Blight
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 6431
Location: Halifax, NS
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| StevieWard wrote: |
| HuJwang wrote: |
| StevieWard wrote: |
I agree its standard, discounting an FH you either get it in or fold. If he was a TAG ir completant player I would probably let it go, but even with this guy looking pretty crap it still seems weird. |
I'd say it's a mistake to think that you should always get your money in lighter against a bad player than a good player. |
The good player is more likely to have the hand though like Ace big, the bad one with Ace rag? The good player probably realises that you get in trouble a lot with no/weak kicker hands whereas you are expected to win more with big kickers?
Sorry, I'm not sure i get you here. |
I don't mean bad loose. The guy is not a bad loose player. He's a bad tight player. Against bad tight players you probably need a much stronger hand to get it in than against good tight players. DUCY? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
